Continuation of Jim Brier post...

Just to continue what was said below. I think part of the reason Jim gets a lot of criticism is


a. He went from from a poster on here to a columnist in a leading poker publication and now an author. Much of the vociferous criticism he received on here were from Sklansky and Malmuth themselves. I think the reason they did so was because Jim had gotten to the point where he was getting paid for giving poker advice. In the eyes of S&M he is now fair game for criticism, especially if they feel some of the advice he gives is weak or just plain wrong.


b. Jim tends to make absolute type statements in a lot of his columns. As we know, poker is a relative situations, not absolute situations. Thus there are many times Jim says something in his column that is seems too rigid, where instead he might be better off saying "it depends". However, sometimes for a beginner it might be better to think in terms of absolutes because the exceptions are exceedingly rare. S&M go to great lengths not to be incorrect in their books. In doing so, they often give many abstract "it depends" type answers to problems one might face. While they are justified in doing so, such answers are of little help to the most players. Jim's column is a boon to players who are willing to work through a hand and see what you should do MOST of the time in a certain situation. As time goes by those players will learn what the exceptions to jims rules are.


I for one always thought Jim's writing was very straightforward and honest, though somewhat overly formulaic (if that's a word). Nonetheless, I enjoyed his posts and enjoy his columns.

There was also anothger area where I had a problem with Jim Brier. It was his insistance of asking the same question over and over even though we had answered it in detail. Specifically I'm referring to the T9 problem (as it has become known) and it's variations. Not only did we answer this many times on these forums, we even gave Jim specific detailed answers in person on many occasions. One of thes occasions occurred at our Q&A seminar last April at The Mirage and our answer was heard by close to 100 people.


The problem with this is that he was making it look like we were unable to answer the question or were trying to duck the question. Furthermore, he never addressed our answer but would usually posted a list of names a week later of supposedly top players, many of whom hardly ever play limit poker, who said they would never make the play. I called this a "cop out" on his part, and I still do.

"S&M go to great lengths not to be incorrect in their books. In doing so, they often give many abstract "it depends" type answers to problems one might face. While they are justified in doing so, such answers are of little help to the most players."


i disagree. the relative complexity of their ideas reflect the comlexity of the game of hold em (i cant comment on stud or omaha). they are doing beginners a favor by presenting to them the idea that there are rarely any easy answers in this game: it requires a constantly thinking person, willing to commit a considerable amount of time and mental energy to beat hold em for any worthwhile amount of money. players who are able to weigh all the variables of every given situation and train their brain to think in a "it depends" fashion do the very best. S+M's advice reflects this fact.


other writers, brier for one, tend to offer advice that is what the beginner intuitively craves (hard and fast answers to common scenarios), but in offering that they are just doing their readers a disservice as much of solid hold em requires counter-intuitive thinking.

You can take this a little further. If the game was easy, we would all be playing close to perfect, and the only winner would be the house.

just starting brier (and ciaffone's) book, a lot there...i think if we have positive analusis and discussion about mid limit he problems, it would be a tremendous help to a player such as myself, who is moving up to 15-30, 20-40. i stand by an earlier statement that i found the detailed discussions highly enlightening, maybe this is what mason charges 200/hr and up to explain...to balance out buying brier's book, i bought mason's lowball book, i know it's strange, but i think there is something in there for me..gl all

i disagree. the relative complexity of their ideas reflect the comlexity of the game of hold em (i cant comment on stud or omaha). they are doing beginners a favor by presenting to them the idea that there are rarely any easy answers in this game: it requires a constantly thinking person, willing to commit a considerable amount of time and mental energy to beat hold em for any worthwhile amount of money.


I don't disagree wtih this statement, but I think there are certain situations that come up again and again where if you are starting to play the game it is better to know what to do MOST of the time. A theme taht comes up again and again in Jims column is to fold hands likely to be second best on the turn if you get raised after showing strength all the way. This is great advice in my opinion. Now, S&M might say, it depends, and they would be right. Obviously if some player thinks he can push you off top pair by raising the turn every time, that is no good. But such players are relatively rare. It's only when you start getting to really tough games that you would have to worry about this. Very few players have the guts to raise you after you raised preflop and bet the flop on a sheer bluff. So while S&M certainly wouldn't be wrong, Jim's advice wouldn't hurt you too much in these situations at all. I think its much easier to learn the theme of how to play in certain spots, and learn the variations later.

" I think there are certain situations that come up again and again where if you are starting to play the game it is better to know what to do MOST of the time"


i agree if we were talking about low limit hold em, but both s=s and jim write about mid-limit hold em where you generally find more sophisticated opponents mixed in with the inexperienced, and even the weakest players are usually capable of at least some higher level thinking about a hand.

I agree with Mike here completely. Who is your target audience? Here's a quote from the back cover of Middle Limit Holdem by Ciaffone and Brier:


"This book is written for someone who has reached the level of a person who already knows how to play holdem and wants to play it better."


I think it's pretty clear that they are not writing for the person that our friend Hetron describes. Thus they need to be held to that higher standard.

complex--yes, hold-em sure is.


seems to me that if a player has some experience he will find thought provoking material in most of these books....and that's where real value is.


M & S bring out the "all depends" rather well, but when I read some of Jim's stuff, my own experience triggers that thought process.


guess I agree with previous post about possibility that more positive statements may not be bad for one learning